As Seen in Vanity Fair's August 2006 Issue!
As Seen in US News & World Report's September 11 Fifth Anniversary Issue!
As Seen in Time Magazine's September 11, 2006 Issue!
As Seen in Phoenix New Times' August 9, 2007 Issue!

Thursday, July 08, 2010

Firedoglake Publishes Troofer Diary

Correcting our flawed judgment of the 9/11 events nine years later is not an easy task; raising doubt about the official story challenges assumptions and beliefs that have taken hold in our innermost core. But once we see with new eyes, constructing a new peaceful world becomes possible. Professor David Ray Griffin has made it less hard to see through the lies and propaganda by painstakingly excavating all the facts that are recoverable about 9/11, and then juxtaposing them with details of the official story in his article, "Did 9/11 Justify the War in Afghanistan?" Professor Griffin calls the war in Afghanistan "an abomination," and unjustifiable.

Grifter himself is an abomination, and his claims are unjustifiable. Remember, his article was the one where he repeated the fatuous and fat-headed argument that the flight manifests didn't include the hijackers. As I have pointed out in the past, this is clearly one of the strangest claims the Troofers could make. What do they think happened? Something like this:

Airline company secretary: Sir, we've printed out the flight manifests as you requested, but there's one problem. Apparently none of the hijackers were on board the planes.

Airline company executive: Release them anyway. Nobody will notice other than a few conspiracy theorists.

I mean, seriously. It's one of those "sacred list" arguments; the New World Order was happy to kill 3,000 people on 9-11 but when it came time to add hijackers names to the flight manifests, they suddenly balked?

It will be interesting to see if Jane Hamsher's site becomes Troofer Central after this. The comments are generally supportive of the conspiracy theorizing.

Also, how do you know those faxes are from exhibit 977? Your link seems to be to 911research.net, a conspiracy website. Has anyone authenticated these documents?

You do very sloppy work, GB. IN another thread you claimed that a bunch of MIT guys supported NIST's collapse mechanism even though the work you cited was published 3 years before the NIST report, and at the time MIT was putting forth the zipper theory that was the complete opposite of the mechanism NIST espoused.

I hear Kevin Barrett needs some research help--I bet you and he would get along very well.

Brian Good, psycho sex stalker for 9/11 troof, dissembles, "...You do very sloppy work, GB. IN another thread you claimed that a bunch of MIT guys supported NIST's collapse mechanism even though the work you cited was published 3 years before the NIST report, and at the time MIT was putting forth the zipper theory that was the complete opposite of the mechanism NIST espoused."

More of your compulsory libel, "Brian"?

Yeah "Brian", my work is "sloppy", which explains why I have two advanced degrees. I suppose this also explains why I've kicked your ass from one end of this blog to the other. Right, psycho stalker for 9/11 troof?

Isn't it true that you suffer from "Ph.D envy"? And given that you're a former janitor it's not hard to understand why you have an irrational hatred for academics and academia.

But I digress...

As I explained before, cretin, the engineers I referenced made it clear in 2002 that the buildings suffered a global progressive collapse. The NIST report agreed with the engineers hypothesis. Now, if the NIST Report agrees with the progressive collapse hypothesis, why would the engineers need to express confidence in a Report that agrees with them?

Got logic, "Brian"?

"...Also, how do you know those faxes are from exhibit 977?"

The answer is simple, cretin. I merely looked at the evidence the prosecution laid out in the United States v. Zacarias Moussaoui (US District Court of Western Virginia).

Instead of libel, jackass, try reality.

And by the way, "Brian", I'm working up a psychological profile on you--I want to know what makes you tick. God help you when I'm finished with that profile.

Is the "Git" even aware of what a nutjob he is? I mean this is the guy whose sacred idea is that Israel has no nuclear weapons and he's gone to the mat (literally) to defend this loopy theory.As always,the Debunker Cult holds the record for the nuttiest conspiracy theories this side of those that think Mount Rushmore is some kind of noble construction.Like the other shithead debunker,Pornboy.

The ArseHooligan, fugitive from justice wrote, "...Is the 'Git' even aware of what a nutjob he is? I mean this is the guy whose sacred idea is that Israel has no nuclear weapons and he's gone to the mat (literally) to defend this loopy theory."

Is libel all you have, shit-for-brains?

And I'm waiting patiently for the evidence that proves that the state of Israel has a nuclear arsenal.

And remember, shit-for-brain, that speculation, unsubstantiated allegations and opinion from NGOs and the like is not evidence.

And, so far, the only person "gone to the mat" is you, oatmeal-for-brains.

Ah,the familiar whine of the spineless jellyfishes swimmimg plentifully at the Debunker Cult cesspool! It's always refreshing and bracing to be reminded that the jerkoffs in this cult will piss and moan the second you say anything to them while they engage in hate speech,slander,libel and vicious lies about free thinking,independent and anti Imperialist citizens of our great land.Wonders never cease! As if to prove his insanity over and over again wasn't enough,the "Git" links us to definitive proof that he's crushing up Adderal all day long.

Steve, use the search button at the top for info about Stubblebine. He's a major-league crazy. I don't know anything about Mitchell, but it certainly appears that he's in Stubblebine's class. Did you check out how he wants to be paid?

http://www.supremelaw.org/guidelines.htm

"If clients wish to expedite the delivery of payments to us, we prefer cash or blank U.S. Postal Money Orders in small denominations, i.e. $100.00 maximum per money order. A blank PMO leaves the PAY TO line blank, allowing us to negotiate it freely, and privately."

Oh, and this should be a pretty big red flag:

"Also, because of serious problems we have discovered with all State Bar Associations, we will continue to refuse any license(s) to practice law in all 50 States and the District of Columbia."

The ArseHooligan, fugitive from justice wrote, "...It's always refreshing and bracing to be reminded that the jerkoffs in this cult will piss and moan the second you say anything to them while they engage in hate speech,slander,libel and vicious lies about free thinking,independent and anti Imperialist citizens of our great land."

LOL!

"...free thinking,independent [SIC]."

Is that how troofers spell insane?

What's the matter, ArseHooligan, don't you like the taste of your own medicine? Mmmmmm...yum.

Talk about stalking.GB seems to know everything about this Brian fellow.You get creepier by the day, billshitter.

It's easy to find this information when you've left a trail a mile wide across the internet, Brian. Maybe if you didn't spend every waking hour babbling about meatballs and forks and widows and Willie Rodriguez, it wouldn't be so easy to find out info about you.

New Yorker wrote, "...It's easy to find this information when you've left a trail a mile wide across the internet, Brian. Maybe if you didn't spend every waking hour babbling about meatballs and forks and widows and Willie Rodriguez, it wouldn't be so easy to find out info about you."

Precisely.

"Brian" leaves incriminating comments from one end of the internet to the other, and if I use Google to dredge up his history of stalking, libel and over-the-top insanity, I'm the stalker?

LL, the video is low resolution and very grainy; however, if you look carefully you can see the airliner.

It emerges from the upper right hand corner of the video; as it crosses the horizon the airliner disappears somewhat. If you have a very high resolution monitor, you can follow the airliner as it crosses the horizon, but once the airliner passes in front of the Towers it disappears, as one would expect.

It's easy to find this information when you've left a trail a mile wide across the internet, Brian.

I don't know Brian but I can relate very similar experiences with another Troofer in another forum. Long story short, I received threatening emails under several different names, but always from the same IP. One of the names turned out to be the guy's real name. Typical Troofer trash: chronically babbling online, obsessed with his own intelligence, unemployed, pot smoker, etc.

He was naturally shocked and outraged and confused when his real name and details about him started appearing in the forum. He couldn't fathom how it had happened, and I think that is the moment I became fascinated with Troofers. They're investigating and exposing the greatest hoax in history but they can't quite figure out how Google works.

1) You agree the video I posted shows an object in the distance approaching WTC 2.

2) You believe the video is authentic, with the only distortion being low resolution.

Let me affirm the following, in addition

1) Posting a "low resolution" version is not a trick or attempt at deception. I don't have a higher resolution version of this at hand.

2) If there are those who don't see the flying object, it is due to the lack of study / discernment.

3) If you are calling me a no-planer because I dispute that a flying aircraft impacted the WTC 1 or WTC 2, you are incorrect. I believe that all videos of the 2nd hit are generally consistent at a certain level and show the dynamics of a flying object traveling in the range of 500-600 mph acting as a projectile and bomb.

4) On 9/11/2010, I do agree some video network controllers make the live feed fade to black. I believe in some "TV Fakery" in some shots was involved in the 2nd hit. However, I vehemently disagree with Ace Baker and others who claim the "nose-out" which preceded the "fade to black" was a fake. The nose-out shows the "cylindrical bomb" which exited wtc2 prior to the massive explosion on the exit side of WTC 2.

I agree that my "shot gun" approach to posting links is not capable of proving my case. My goal is to have a fair review / debate, and I appreciate your contribution toward that goal.

If there are those who don't see the flying object, it is due to the lack of study / discernment.

Are you really telling me that identifying a moving object in a video is something that requires study and discernment? What is this, special ed?

the dynamics of a flying object traveling in the range of 500-600 mph acting as a projectile and bomb.

In one paragraph we go from "can you spot the moving object in this picture?" to physics calculations.

Which is such a perfect example of how 9-11 Truthers seek to convert others. How many times have they used this technique:

1. Show something obvious. 2. Wait for the person to acknowledge the obvious. 3. Treat this recognition of the obvious like some kind of grand intellectual leap.4. Jump immediately to your desired conclusion.

"Is this a moving object?""Uh... yeah.""It was moving at 500-600 miles per hour therefore DURR INSIDE JOB DURRRRRRRRRR."

Or in BG's case: "It was moving at 500-600 miles per hour therefore I'm not saying it is or it isn't TV fakery, I'm saying it might be TV fakery, even though I don't really agree with TV fakery, I just want to have a discussion about TV fakery. Please have a discussion with me? Please?"

"1) Posting a "low resolution" version is not a trick or attempt at deception. I don't have a higher resolution version of this at hand."

Find one taken from around the corner where you can see the airliner hitting, then.

So, yeah, you lie.

"2) If there are those who don't see the flying object, it is due to the lack of study / discernment."

It's not an "oblect", it's an airplane.

So, yeah, you lie.

"3) If you are calling me a no-planer because I dispute that a flying aircraft impacted the WTC 1 or WTC 2, you are incorrect. I believe that all videos of the 2nd hit are generally consistent at a certain level and show the dynamics of a flying object traveling in the range of 500-600 mph acting as a projectile and bomb."

It's called an "airplane", moron.

And, yeah it acted as a bomb, with the energy release equal to a small nuclear weapon.

So, yeah, you lie.

"4) On 9/11/2010, I do agree some video network controllers make the live feed fade to black. I believe in some "TV Fakery" in some shots was involved in the 2nd hit. However, I vehemently disagree with Ace Baker and others who claim the "nose-out" which preceded the "fade to black" was a fake. The nose-out shows the "cylindrical bomb" which exited wtc2 prior to the massive explosion on the exit side of WTC 2."

BG wrote, "...However, I vehemently disagree with Ace Baker and others who claim the 'nose-out' which preceded the 'fade to black' was a fake. The nose-out shows the 'cylindrical bomb' which exited wtc2 prior to the massive explosion on the exit side of WTC 2."

Hardfire's host, Ronald Wieck, brought in a video analysis expert named Steve Wright to challenge Ace Baker's "fade to black" theory (I know that you disagree with Ace Baker's theory, but the videos will answer your questions). Mr. Wright explains that the "fade to black" was, in fact, caused by the camera's automatic gain control circuitry. As the fire ball emerges from the south tower (opposite the point of impact) the camera "irises down", in much the same way that a human would blink in response to a bright flash of light. The video fades to black for 16 frames, and then the gain control circuitry recovers.

The second video is from the same show, and documents the impact from another angle. Pay particular attention to Steve Wright's explanation of the event, because he proves, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that an airliner slammed into the south tower.

Wow, Trite, that guy's in Leo Wanta land! I wonder if he wants the $2.8 trillion in small money orders.

It's even zanier when you see what the $2.8 trillion is for.

Basically: In the late 1990s, Paul Andrew Mitchell wrote a book about how to get out of paying federal income tax. It's the usual tax protestor bullshit. Well, it started floating around the Internet. PAM discovered this and started filing lawsuits against every website owner he could identify. Many of them were universities, some of them were just ordinary shmoes such as EText. It even got a mention in the Chronicle of Higher Education.

Now here's the funny part. The book itself contained this language:

If the information contained in the electronic third edition is useful in any way, we ask that its recipients send $25 in cash, check or money order to...

Which basically makes it public domain, since payment requires that the reader find it useful.

This guy would be a hoot if he wasn't such a crook. I'm sure his letters have scared a few people into sending him money. That is racketeering, extortion, and impersonating an officer of the government. And he's been doing it for years. Why Paul Andrew Mitchell isn't in federal prison is one of the great mysteries of our time.

BG wrote, "...If you are calling me a no-planer because I dispute that a flying aircraft impacted the WTC 1 or WTC 2, you are incorrect. I believe that all videos of the 2nd hit are generally consistent at a certain level and show the dynamics of a flying object traveling in the range of 500-600 mph acting as a projectile and bomb."

Obviously, an airliner moving at over 500 mph would constitute both a "projectile and bomb."

The airliner's wings alone, fully loaded with jet fuel and traveling in excess of 500 mph, struck the south tower with an impact equivalent to 70,000 psi (that is, pounds per square inch), which is more than sufficient to penetrate the the towers perimeter box columns.

Thus, it should surprise no one that parts of the aircraft, including the engines, emerged opposite the point of impact.

Let's see,maybe I am stupid after all,but did the Insane Yuppie just say something about"perimeter box columns"?! We know the wackjob gets ahead of himself and whatnot,but this one has me scratching my head.Could the greasy coward Ronald Qeak please weigh in on this one,we haven't heard a peep out of that scumbag since his last Hitler-esque screed.

The ArseHooligan dissembles, "...Let's see,maybe I am stupid after all,but did the Insane Yuppie just say something about"perimeter box columns"?!"

Yes, you're a major league git.

Each tower weighed in at roughly 500,000 tons (which is rather light for buildings of this height), and stood 411 meters above ground level. Thus, wind load was a major problem, as opposed to gravity. As a result, the buildings were designed to resist a wind load of 2 kPa (that is kilo Pascals, a derived unit of pressure or stress. Thus, the tower could withstand a lateral load of 5,000 tons). In order to withstand this potential wind load, the engineers selected a perimeter tube design, which consisted on 244 perimeter box columns. The perimeter box columns were 36cm x 100 cm. The 27m x 40m core, supported the majority of the tower's weight. A matrix of trusses 80 cm from top (that is, the height of each truss) to bottom connected the core to the perimeter box columns.

Thus, the World Trade Center Towers were lightweight buildings, designed to provide the maximum amount of office space for the potential occupants.

The idea that one needs to pick a side between Ace Baker and Steve Wright, as referenced by the Hard Fire episodes seems like a huge restriction of possible explanations of what happened on 9/11/2001. What is discussed on Hard Fire is a huge narrowing of details to be subjected to analysis. Specifically, for example, explaining away the "fade to black" as the lens automatically responding to the transitory lighting is completely awaiting a thorough treatment, when we have only a hypothesis by Wright.

I don't dispute your crude analysis of the design of the WTC in general, and the possible related kinetic energy and momentum of the moving of the object's crash, including the fuel which might have been part of the crash and part of combustion after the crash.

However, the actual cutting thru the walls, opening of the walls, the specific deformation, and the explosions are not at all explained by the Purdue simulations or any other explanation of what is witnessed in the videos.

The anomalies are many including missing matching planes parts ( specifically including aircraft engine in whole or parts ).

The idea that any overall study explaining or proving that AA 11 and UA 175 were the planes involved is completely missing from any comprehensive investigation.

Somebody comments, " You know how much energy it takes to melt molybdenum? I’ve got a bit of a clue... I’ve got small chunks of pure Molybdenum around the house my dad’s lab gave away to visitors. Trust me. I’ve heard everything there is to hear about molybdenum..."

Is he joking? Does he not realise how this sounds?

In the unlikely event of this guy ever getting a girlfriend, imagine her reaction when he starts to lecture her on molybdenum. Then he shows her his bomb shelter, the bottles of urine he has stored in his refrigerator, and for his trouble he gets blasted with some mace and she hightails it out as quickly as possible.

GB: "my work is 'sloppy', which explains why I have two advanced degrees."

Really? In what fields? Kevin Barrett has three, and his work is as sloppy as yours.

GB: "the engineers I referenced made it clear in 2002 that the buildings suffered a global progressive collapse."

That's a garbage can diagnosis. Even if it was blown up by explosives it was a global progressive collapse. If you had half a brain, GB, you wouldn't spend your time hanging out lecturing people who agree with you about what you all already believe about a subject you all think is completely trivial.

In 2002 the mechanism by which global progressive collapse was believed to have been achieved was completely different from that out forth in the NIST report.

So how about we return to the point and you name some untainted engineers who have expressed confidence in NIST's collapse mechanism? You haven't done it yet.

During the clean up process, the remains of Peter Hanson and Lisa Frost (UA 175) were found--albeit bone fragments. Many other fragments were found; however, many were never identified.

Perhaps you can explain how the passengers managed, in mid-air, to get on aircraft other than the Flight AM-11 or UA-175.

Care to take whack at that one?

%^)

In addition, debris from the aircraft were recovered, including landing gear found on top of a nearby building; an engine found at Church and Murray Street; and a section of the fuselage was found on top of World Trade Center building number 5.

Concerning AM 11: Forensic and medical examiners identified the remains of 33 victims who had been on board Flight 11. Several more victims, including two hijackers were subsequently identified some time later (2006).

Couldn't do that. It would be stalking. OK I get the profile: you're an unemployed IT guy living off your wife's earnings at Dunkin Donuts, and that's why you hang around with a bunch of juveniles making each other feel clever.

GB: "If explosives were used, we'd have a demolition, not a progressive collapse."

The only difference is initiation. A demolition is an induced collapse. And the fact remains that "total progressive collapse" is so broad as to be meaningless, and your claim that engineers in 2002 endorsed a report of 2005 is dishonesty on a par with that of Barrett, Rodriguez, and Ranke. It does not surprised me that you cite them. You disinfo types have to support each other.

I'll suppose you don't even know the initiation mechanism proposed by FEMA, or that proposed by NIST. A typical SLCer, you try to cover up ignorance with invective.

GB: "I gave you 14 world-class civil and structural engineers"

And since the first 8 made their remarks three years before the report in question was published, I quit paying attention.

How many independent engineers have expressed confidence in the collapse mechanism of the NIST report? When you keep lying and changing the subject you look like you can't answer.

Long T Phan has received sevaral awards from NIST. Where are you independent engineers?

GB, I think they've now identified all the passengers except one (a three-year-old child).

I know this from an FOIA letter somebody sent to the government around 2004 requesting information about the DNA testing. They got back a list of names with the designation "victims who were identified." The list did not include the hijackers (who were not victims) or this one child (who was, presumably, not identified).

Of course, in the hands of the Truthers this turned into DURR HIJACKERS WEREN'T ON THE MANIFEST DURR CONSPIRACY DURRRRRRRR. Assholes.

I'm dreadfully sorry that I embarrassed Guitar Bill because of his ignorance. I should have known he was hypersensitive about his inability to support his family, and his self-respect depends on hanging around with a bunch of intellectual midgets laughing at people they imagine to be inferior to themselves.

Hey GB, if you're so smart why haven't you posed devastating questions to Richard Gage in any of the many times he's given talks in your area? Why are you afraid of Richard Gage? Can't you find one of your millions of structural engineers to come and hold your hand while you do it?

"Brian Good, psycho stalker for 9/11 troof, dissembles, "...The only difference is initiation. A demolition is an induced collapse."

Now it's an "induced collapse"? What happened to "progressive collapse"--you side-winding bullshitter?

LOL!

"...and your claim that engineers in 2002 endorsed a report of 2005 is dishonesty on a par with that of Barrett, Rodriguez, and Ranke."

I never said that--you liar. Is libel all you have, psycho stalker for 9/11 troof?

Here's what I said:

"...As I explained before, cretin, the engineers I referenced made it clear in 2002 that the buildings suffered a global progressive collapse. The NIST report agreed with the engineers hypothesis. Now, if the NIST Report agrees with the progressive collapse hypothesis, why would the engineers need to express confidence in a Report that agrees with them?"

All you do is twist peoples words beyond recognition, and attack with ridiculous straw man arguments.

In the future, don't "paraphrase" me, fuckface. Use direct quotes, or fuck off.

"...Long T Phan has received sevaral awards from NIST."

So what?

Your claim that NIST is "tainted" is based on your opinion, not facts.

"Brian Good", psycho stalker for 9/11 troof, dissembles, "...I'm dreadfully sorry that I embarrassed Guitar Bill because of his ignorance. I should have known he was hypersensitive about his inability to support his family, and his self-respect depends on hanging around with a bunch of intellectual midgets laughing at people they imagine to be inferior to themselves...[blah] [blah]"

I didn't say NIST was tainted. I said Pham was tainted. You haven't shown any independent engineers who express confidence in NIST's collapse mechanism.

I'm finally coming to realize that I can more effectively serve the truth movement by making the idiots in this forum think you're smart than by making them think you're stupid. In the former case they go around repeating your nonsense and making fools of themselves.

"Total progressive collapse" is not a collapse mechanism. It's a description of what happened, but not why it happened.

"...Bill, how can a paper written in 2002 constitute endorsement of a report in 2005?"

Another straw man argument?

I never said any such thing.

Here's what I said,

"...As I explained before, cretin, the engineers I referenced made it clear in 2002 that the buildings suffered a global progressive collapse. The NIST report agreed with the engineers hypothesis. Now, if the NIST Report agrees with the progressive collapse hypothesis, why would the engineers need to express confidence in a Report that agrees with them?"

First of all, liar, I gave you the link to the pdf document, and you're misrepresenting the content found therein--period.

"...GuitarBull, it means he's an engineer with his own firm."

Complete the sentence, fuck face.

"...thus, he's independent."

Check

"...Where does he express confidence in the NIST report?"

He expressed confidence in the report by adopting the report's recommendations.

Dr. Harris wrote, "...With respect to recommendation #9, ASCE/SIE has been working with the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, and has already prepared a draft to update ASCE/SIE/SFPE, by incorporating performance-based fire resistant design...ASCE favors the development of tools to assist engineers in addressing the issue of PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE." (emphasis added--ed)"

Don't expect Brian Good to understand that words have meanings. I recall a hilarious instance in which he endlessly asserted without evidence that what happened during the WTC collapse was a "pyroclastic flow".

I'm finally coming to realize that I can more effectively serve the truth movement by making the idiots in this forum think you're smart than by making them think you're stupid. In the former case they go around repeating your nonsense and making fools of themselves.

Nobody cares what you've come to realize, Brian, unless it's that you've come to realize how much you're in need of serious psychiatric treatment.

When are you going to name an independent engineer who expresses confidence in NIST's report about its collapse mechanism? Whassamatter, can't do it?

He already has, Brian.

So admit it: You can't name one independent engineer who endorses the NIST report's collapse mechanism.

False.

Do you even read the stuff you post, or do you like a Barrett groupie or a Ranke groupie just parrot what you're told?

Brian, professional psychiatric help can fix your obsession with Kevin Barrett.

BG wrote, "...None of these articles allege that a single hijacker has been identified based on any evidence collected at Ground Zero...Read it all carefully. Other planes' hijacker remains have been used, and other sources of genetic material has been used. Nada from Ground Zero."

"...[R]ead it carefully"?

Really? No kidding?

Let's see who reads carefully, okay BG?

[The ellipses represent paragraph breaks]

The BBC wrote, "...Forensic experts in New York say they have identified body parts of two of the 10 hijackers who flew planes into the World Trade Center on 11 September 2001...Ellen Borakove, a spokeswoman for the New York Medical Examiner's Office, said the identifications had been made using DNA samples provided by the Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI)...The FBI had collected the DNA from tiny traces of skin on the steering wheels of vehicles hired by the hijackers and from hair samples recovered from their hotel rooms...Earlier this month, the FBI provided profiles of all 10 hijackers, including alleged ringleader Mohammad Atta, so their remains could be separated from those of victims..."No names were attached to those profiles. We matched them, and we have matched two of those profiles to remains that we have," Ms Borakove said...Nearly 18 months after the attacks, the forensic scientists have managed to identify remains belonging to at least 1,465 of the estimated 2,790 people reported killed in the attacks...Victims' relatives hope to establish a tomb of the unknown to house unidentified remains as part of a Ground Zero memorial, and do not want the hijackers included, reports say."

So let's see, GuitarBull still can't demonstrate the existence of a single independent engineer that expresses support for NIST's theories about the collapse. He has to scurry around scooping up circumstantial evidence. Isn't that droll?

The article archived below here makes a clear claim about ID'ing 4 of the hijackers alleged to have been involved in crashes at Ground Zero.

http://r4.sharedcopy.com/3qmpt54u

Whether it is this news article or others, I respect this article, or others like it, is evidence that has to be explained if I am to stick with my assertion that AA (AM) 11 and UA 175 did not crash as alleged.

"Through a combination of innovative DNA-mapping techniques, help from the FBI's crime lab and dumb luck, the scientists have now ID'd four of the 10 New York hijackers. The remains of the nine hijackers from the Pentagon and Pennsylvania crash sites have also been confirmed; six other hijackers have yet to be identified."

They aren't ALLEGED to be hijackers, they WERE hijackers.

So take your "doubts" and your "questions", fold them until they are all corners, and shove them up your ass, you fat sack of fail.

BG wrote, "...Whether it is this news article or others, I respect this article, or others like it, is evidence that has to be explained if I am to stick with my assertion that AA (AM) 11 and UA 175 did not crash as alleged."

Sorry BG, but the only thing you've managed to prove is that you can't read.

"...In September 2007 the medical examiner's office in New York announced it had identified a fourth set of terrorist remains —the 13th identified to date."

GuitarBull, please advise as to when Dr. Harris specifically endorsed the findings of the NIST report on collapse mechanism. The fact that you must rely on false claims of implicit endorsements shows that you can not find a single independent engineer who will defend the NIST report.

Your attempt at an ad hominem attack based on the assumption that I am Brian Good only further discredits your argument.

TriteRube, I'd suggest you leave the analogies to those who are competent to interpret them. The analogy of suicide and the coroner's report compares a general interest in a subject to specific findings in a specific case. Your analogy of death to death only supports the notion that the building collapsed by collapse.

The goat fucker dissembles, "...GuitarBull, please advise as to when Dr. Harris specifically endorsed the findings of the NIST report on collapse mechanism."

Right here, goat fucker.

Dr. Harris wrote, "...With respect to recommendation #9, ASCE/SIE has been working with the Society of Fire Protection Engineers, and has already prepared a draft to update ASCE/SIE/SFPE, by incorporating performance-based fire resistant design...ASCE favors the development of tools to assist engineers in addressing the issue of PROGRESSIVE COLLAPSE." (emphasis added--ed)"

"...Your attempt at an ad hominem attack based on the assumption that I am Brian Good only further discredits your argument."

Right, and that's why you invoked Kevin Barrett after I referred to as "psycho sex stalker for 9/11 troof". Isn't that precisely what Barrett calls you, goat fucker?

Your lies are so transparent, it's pathetic.

"...The fact that you must rely on false claims of implicit endorsements shows that you can not find a single independent engineer who will defend the NIST report."

That's right, goat fucker, tell the same transparent lies over-and-over again. It matters not, because I've proven that you're a liar so many times now, that your alleged credibility can be measured in negative engineering units.

Poor goat fucker, he's a complete failure in life, who could never rise above the level of a toilet licking janitor. Adding insult to injury, his inability to accomplish anything of significance or improve his life has driven him over the edge into the abyss of insanity. And now, as old age, insanity and the realization that he'll never amount to anything take their devastating toll, all he has to fill his last days are delusion, lies and projection.

Prediction: Soon, he'll grab a revolver, load it, place the resolver in his mouth, and end it all.

The goat fucker dissembles, "...GutterBull, an interest in progressive collapse is not the same as endorsing NIST's report--just as an interest in 9/11 is not the same as endorsing AE911Truth."

Logical fallacy: False analogy.

"...Why do you insist on changing the subject to Brian Good? Barrett and Good have nothing to do with your inability to support your claim that engineers endorse the NIST report."

False. I've already won the debate--your lies to the contrary notwithstanding. In addition, I've proven, beyond a doubt, that you're a liar.

"...And now you're down to getting your jollies by fortune-telling the suicide of someone you don't even know--gee, project much?"

False. I know you better than you'll ever know yourself.

Put simply, you're a psychopath. In fact, your lack of empathy, compulsive lying and amoral conduct without guilt or remorse give you away. After all, psychopaths use manipulation, intimidation, sexual intercourse and emotional and physical violence to control their victims and gain advantage over others. Additionally, this explains why you're widely hated: You lack the qualities that allow a human being to live in social harmony.

Too bad that psychiatrists are unable to help an intraspecies predator of your ilk. In fact, you're not only incurable but also untreatable, which explains why you persist in lying no matter what the cost to your reputation.

Better to put that gun in your mouth and squeeze the trigger, "Brian". For once in your miserable life, do yourself and the World a favor; be man enough to do the honorable thing: Pull the trigger and end your misery.

BitterGull, your inability to distinguish an interest in a subject from an endorsement of a body of work on that subject speaks poorly for your powers of reason--and might help explain why the price of your IT services came to exceed their value.

Your claims that Dr. Harris endorsed the NIST report are demonstrated to be false by your own link.

Because you're a psychopath--and there's no cure or treatment for psychopathy. In fact, therapy only make a psychopath worse. Thus, the only solution is for you to do the honorable thing: Off yourself.

But we know that psychopaths have no honor and no conscience. Hence, your behavior.

It really is hilarious to see Brian Good's obsessions morph. A year ago he was babbling endlessly about unanswered widows questions, as if such questions had any relevance to the question of whether 9/11 was an inside job.

Today he's babbling endlessly about independent engineers endorsing NIST, as if such an endorsement has any relevance to the question of whether 9/11 was an inside job.

So you admit that you can't name a single independent engineer who has made a statement to the effect of "I find the NIST report credible and its findings on the collapse mechanism to be convincing" or words to that effect.

And yet 250 licensed engineers will say the NIST report is not credible. Why is that?

Bull, you have not shown that any of the 14 people you list have endorsed the NIST report. Please back up your claim.

Otherwise I will conclude that you can't.

The belief that mere acquiescence to the recommendations constitutes an endorsement of the report is irrational and not justified. ASCE should oppose stuff it was already pushing? This was the realm of politics, not science.

Even if I grant your specious argument and give you Dr. Harris, when did the other 13 endorse the report?

New Yorker, since there is no controversy about the theory of gravity, there's no need to endorse it. Your claim that there is no controversy about 9/11 is a lie.

GutterBall, your claim that you are an engineer is laughable. You would not meet the criteria at AE911Truth as an engineer.

It should not be difficult for you to provide an example of one of your 14 names explicitly endorsing NIST's report. That you must rely on a bogus claim that Dr. Harris implicitly endorses it is damning.

Your lies are standing between the 9/11 widows and orphans the truth they deserve. You should be ashamed of yourself.

What's happening here, GutterBall, is that you are getting your face rubbed in the utter unsustainability of your beliefs. That's painful, but it's healthy. You will grow to find stronger, truer beliefs.

For example, "...The fact that you must rely on false claims of implicit endorsements shows that you can not find a single independent engineer who will defend the NIST report."

Why it was you, spammer and psychopath for 9/11 troof.

A hypocrite, aren't you?

Now, psychopath, it's obvious that you lack the intellectual horsepower to prove that the engineers I listed for you don't endorse the NIST Report--which is proof positive that you're a psychopath.

Since you're unable to provide evidence that proves that the engineers I listed are opponents of the NIST Report, let alone provide evidence that confirms your alleged "sanity", it's safe to conclude that you're, in fact, a lying psychopath.

Now, until you can provide a psychiatrist who backs your claim of sanity, we're forced to conclude that you are, in fact, a psychopath.

What's the matter, psychopath, you don't like the foul taste of your own specious "logic" when it's used against you?

Cry me a river, psychopath.

Now, where's the certificate that verifies your sanity, psychopath?

And while you're at it, it should be child's play for you to prove that the engineers I listed don't endorse the NIST Report. Right?

Poofster, your repeated demand that I prove something I never claimed is only a pathetic attempt to spam away the fact that you never supported your claims that independent engineers endorsed the NIST report.

More lies, jackass? Or are you getting your second wind (a fart, I presume), old man?

Again psychopath for 9/11 troof, the report was endorsed by the civil and structural engineering community when they adopted the reports' recommendations at all critical levels: Academia, safety and design.

Care to prove me wrong?

Now, answer the God damned question: So, where's your proof that the engineers I listed are opponents of the NIST Report?

Poofster, your repeated demand that I prove something I never claimed is only a pathetic attempt to spam away the fact that you never supported your claims that independent engineers endorsed the NIST report. So now you're down to claiming that "the community" implicitly endorsed the report, a de facto admission that you can't support your claims. Pathetic.

Clearly, you refuse to answer my question, no matter how many times I've asked that simple question; thus, you lose the the argument again, because you're stonewalling.

Again psychopath for 9/11 troof, the report was endorsed by the civil and structural engineering community when they adopted the reports' recommendations at all critical levels: Academia, safety and design.

New Yorker, since there is no controversy about the theory of gravity, there's no need to endorse it. Your claim that there is no controversy about 9/11 is a lie.

False. There is no controversy over 9/11, Petgoat. All the pointless babbling about widows and meatballs on forks won't change that.

GutterBall, your claim that you are an engineer is laughable. You would not meet the criteria at AE911Truth as an engineer.

Of course he wouldn't, since he's not either insane, a liar, or a con artist. You can't be a 9/11 "truther" without being one of the above.

It should not be difficult for you to provide an example of one of your 14 names explicitly endorsing NIST's report.

He already did.

That you must rely on a bogus claim that Dr. Harris implicitly endorses it is damning.

False.

Your lies are standing between the 9/11 widows and orphans the truth they deserve. You should be ashamed of yourself.

False.

GutterBall, it is not for me to disprove your claims. You have to prove them.

False. You don't understand the concept of the burden of proof. Nobody in the "truth" movement does.

You haven't shown any connection between your 14 engineers and the adoption of NIST's recommendations.

False.

You haven't shown that your 14 engineers were connected to the adoption of the recs.

Nobody cares, Petgoat.

GutterBall, you are just trying to spam over the fact that you made claims you did not and can not support. I never said anything about causality. I only challenged you to support your claims.

Stop lying, Petgoat.

Poofster

Homophobia.

Poofster, your repeated demand that I prove something I never claimed is only a pathetic attempt to spam away the fact that you never supported your claims that independent engineers endorsed the NIST report. So now you're down to claiming that "the community" implicitly endorsed the report, a de facto admission that you can't support your claims. Pathetic.

So GutterBall is reduced to claiming an implicit endorsement of NIST by an undefined "community" because he can't point to real statements by real people. Thanks for proving my point, Mr. Fail. There are no statements of support for NIST's report from independent engineers.

And New Yorker and Stillborn Short are reduced to claiming that there is no controversy about 9/11. TIME magazine said in 2006 that support for the 9/11 Truth movement is not a "fringe phenomenon", but "a mainstream political reality"--and that was before AE911Truth even started.

Hey guys, why do you spend so much time here if 9/11 is not controversial?

"...So GutterBall is reduced to claiming an implicit endorsement of NIST by an undefined "community" because he can't point to real statements by real people."

Lying again, psychopath?

They don't have to make a statement. All they need to do is adopt the NIST Reports' recommendations. Engineers are loath to adopt any report--to say nothing of adopting the Reports' recommendations at the academic, safety and design level--where the conclusions are in doubt. Obviously, if the recommendations found therein are in error, injury or death could result. Additionally, the legal ramifications are enormous. (Never mind, the obvious always escapes our resident psychopath for 9/11 troof).

There are no statements of support for NIST's report from independent engineers.

False.

And New Yorker and Stillborn Short are reduced to claiming that there is no controversy about 9/11.

There is no controversy about 9/11, Petgoat.

TIME magazine said in 2006 that support for the 9/11 Truth movement is not a "fringe phenomenon", but "a mainstream political reality"--and that was before AE911Truth even started.

Yes, "mainstream political reality", that's why President McKinney is trying to get Congress to extend unemployment benefits right now, right?

You really need less flimsy straws to grasp at, Petgoat.

Also, a far greater number of people reject evolution than have joined your little cult, and yet they have no more of a legitimate argument than you do. To sane people, "controversy" suggests that two sides of an argument have serious points to make. What serious points do you have to make in favor of 9/11 "truth", Petgoat?

Hey guys, why do you spend so much time here if 9/11 is not controversial?

Because you make me laugh. I'm here for the same reason I just got "Tropic Thunder" from Netflix: I like some humor in my life.

I'm sorry if I burst your bubble, Petgoat, but nobody here takes you seriously. We're all just laughing at you.

"Job"? The man is unemployed and lives with his parents. He gets kicked out of every "truth" group he joins. All he does all day is post mindless babble here and stalk Carol Brouillet, Rodriguez, and Barrett.

GutterBall, your lack of familiarity with engineering issues shows. There is no danger of death or injury from the adoption of excessively conservative recommendations. You have not and can not point to one explicit statement of support for the NIST report from an independent engineer.

New Yorker, were you traumatized by Brian Good? Is that why you invoke him as some kind of bogeyman, the Osama bin Laden of 9/11 Truth?

The psychopath spews another half-truth, "...GutterBall, your lack of familiarity with engineering issues shows. There is no danger of death or injury from the adoption of excessively conservative recommendations."

No, in fact, your lack of familiarity with engineering issues sticks out like a sore thumb.

Engineers are obliged to complete a project at the lowest cost. Thus, "excessively conservative recommendations" are anathema to the engineering community.

However, you've provided no evidence to substantiate your claim of "excessively conservative recommendations."

Now, if the NIST Reports' recommendations are "excessively conservative", why are the reports' recommendations adopted at all levels, including academia, safety and design?

The psychopath for 9/11 troof whines, "...You have not demonstrated that NIST's recommendations were adopted to any serious degree."

Wrong again, fucktard.

The new World Trade Center 7 is 52 stories and stands 266 meters from the ground-level. The new building is universally regarded as the safest skyscraper in the United States. The new building employs a host of safety features that represents the prototype for new high-rise construction. All of the new safety features are derived DIRECTLY from the NIST Report.

The new building features 60cm thick concrete-reinforced escape routes and elevator shafts. The stairways are much wider and are illuminated by florescent markings, which permit faster egress of the occupants during emergencies. Again, all of the new safety features are derived DIRECTLY from the NIST Report.

The building employs the latest impact resistant fire-retardant, which protects the building's columns and trusses. Once again, the new impact resistant fire-retardant features are derived DIRECTLY from the NIST Report.

So, what were you saying about "[y]ou have not demonstrated that NIST's recommendations were adopted to any serious degree", fucktard?

No doubt, psychopath, if you had a brain in your empty head, you'd be dangerous.

Question: Did you eat paint chips and sniff glue as a child, psychopath?

Wider stairwells, impact-resistant fire-retardant, 60 cm walls? These are substantive changes that demonstrate industry-wide confidence in the NIST report? How do we know it's not just Larry Silverstein's PR stuff to try to make prospective tenants comfortable in a potential death trap?

Seems to me I heard they were having a hard time filling the new building. Did they ever get enough tenants?

Don't you have a serious report about the recommendations that tells which ones were rejected?

You have not demonstrated that NIST's recommendations were adopted to any serious degree. This is in keeping with your general inability to support your claims.

False.

Gee GutterBall, would it kill you to cite a source?

Wider stairwells, impact-resistant fire-retardant, 60 cm walls? These are substantive changes that demonstrate industry-wide confidence in the NIST report? How do we know it's not just Larry Silverstein's PR stuff to try to make prospective tenants comfortable in a potential death trap?

Objection, your honor, speculation.

Gee, Petgoat, he gives you an example and you immediately dismiss it. Anything to keep clinging to your delusional belief in 9/11 "truth", which appears to be the only thing that gives your life meaning.

Maybe you should seek professional help.

Seems to me I heard they were having a hard time filling the new building. Did they ever get enough tenants?

You might not have noticed, Brian, since you're never one to actually hold a job, but there was this whole financial crisis and severe recession in which millions of jobs were lost. Office vacancies across the US are at record highs. Call it a hunch, but that might be one reason they're having trouble filling the building.

The psychopath dissembles, "...Wider stairwells, impact-resistant fire-retardant, 60 cm walls? These are substantive changes that demonstrate industry-wide confidence in the NIST report? How do we know it's not just Larry Silverstein's PR stuff to try to make prospective tenants comfortable in a potential death trap?"

Read the NIST Reports' recommendations--you git.

wtc.com wrote, "...The building will incorporate advanced life-safety systems that exceed New York City building code requirements and create a new standard for high-rise buildings. In addition to structural redundancy and dense and highly adhesive fireproofing, the building will include biological and chemical filters in the air supply system. To assume optimum egress and firefighting capacity, extra-wide pressurized stairs, multiple backups on emergency lighting, and concrete protection for all sprinklers and emergency risers will be provided, in addition to interconnected redundant exits, additional stair exit locations at all adjacent streets, and direct exits to the street from tower stairs. All of the building's life-safety systems - egress stairs, communication antennae, exhaust and ventilation shafts, electrical risers, standpipes, and elevators - will be encased in a core wall that will be three feet thick in most places.

"This building is being designed to facilitate emergency response with enhanced emergency communication cables and will include a dedicated stair for use by firefighters. These safety measures can be used in conjunction with enhanced elevators, housed in a protected central building core, which will serve every floor of the building. In addition, protected tenant collection points will be located on each floor. To satisfy security concerns, the building's setback distance from West Street (Route 9A) was increased from 25 feet to an average of 90 feet in June 2005.

"These safety features will sit on top of a base (clad in glass prisms) that includes the building's lobby, which will feature 50-foot ceilings. The 102-story building will feature a main lobby entry on Fulton Street for office tenants, with additional entrances on the West and Washington Street sides for observation deck visitors and restaurant diners, respectively."

GutterBall, NIST's recommendations as proposed were not the recommendations as adopted. You are incompetent or dishonest or both. Like I said, perfect for Barrett's team.

This is the most pathetic display of grasping at straws since the time you continued to insist, long after you were proven flat-out wrong, that the collapse of the WTC caused pyroclastic flows.

Seriously, Brian, who do you think you're kidding? The fact that you continue to babble about this stuff is just endlessly amusing to me, but one would think you'd have learned to give up after a while. Perhaps psychiatric treatment will help you.

LL I didn't move the goalposts. GutterBall claimed that the adoption of the recs was proof of the engineers' respect for the NIST report. Thus it is the recs as adopted that are the issue, not the recs as proposed. And in fact the difference between the two, which GB seems unwilling or unable to discuss, is a measure of the engineers' disrespect for NIST.

Or are you still of the mistaken opinion that your questions are "evidence"?

Don't you know? If Brian Good asserts something to be true, it automatically is. That's because he's an incomparable genius. The only reason he's an unemployed janitor is because squealing girls like you and me refuse to acknowledge his genius.

Ah, so in your mind your inability to answer questions is caused by my dishonesty?

He has answered your questions. Many times. You're not interested in his answers because you need 9/11 "truth" myths to give your life meaning. Plus, you crave the attention you get here, so you're never going to shut up, either.

New Yorker, GB has not backed up his claim that independent engineers endorse the NIST report. Instead he provided 2002 writings as if they were endorsements of a 2005 report, and had to resort to the concept of an implicit endorsement to name even one name.

The ArseHooligan, fugitive from justice, whines, "...Is there weker [SIC] brew anywhere on the net than the pathetic sycophantic lackey 'New Yorker'.I got two words to say to you,jackoff:'Shut the fuck up'."

GutterBall, support your claims that independent engineers endorse the NIST report. You can't link to a single quote.

False. He provided the link.

New Yorker, why would anyone want to poll a bunch of liars?

So you already know you'd lose, huh Petgoat? Maybe that's a hint that you should seek professional help?

If you have answered 50 times, GutterBall, what's to stop you from answering again? Harris? Show me where Harris endorsed the NIST report. Show me the words.

He already did, Petgoat. He can show you a 51st time, but you'll just repeat this gibberish because 9/11 "truth" isn't about reason or evidence to you, it's religious dogma that gives your life meaning.

GutterBall, why do you provide Dr. Harris's phone number instead of providing a quote?

Don't you agree that there should be hundreds of quotes in which independent engineers endorse the NIST report and celebrate the end of this 9/11 Truth nonsense? Their silence on the issue is quite telling. How come Popular Mechanics doesn't do another debunking article specifically about controlled demolition?

The poor,poor,pitiful "Git",such a hipster (get a load of his self promo link!!) that he doesn't know how to spell his idol Coltrane's name properly (until corrected by a "truther",oof!) and now he reveals his utter cement headed lack of awareness of modern culture and leaps,haplessly,fecklessly,desperately and with alacrity,at the notion that I wouldn't know that there were four words in that quote.Don't you get out to the movies once in a while? Haven't you seen "Midnight Run" at least once on your crappy satellite system? Jeepers,Dogboy,you're more of a square than we thought.What a sap! Hit th beach,Tiger,your slip is showing.

The ArseHooligan, fugitive from justice, whines, "...The poor,poor,pitiful "Git",such a hipster (get a load of his self promo link!!) that he doesn't know how to spell his idol Coltrane's name properly..."

You're the liar,Dogboy,you said you never threatened to get your hands on me.Ask Sackdoily for proof,he's the President Linkin' of your mad cult.The thing is,he's so dishonest and cowardly that he'd never cross the cult and let the chips fall where they may.You know the truth,and so does anyone who reads this site regularly.Chickenshit doesn't even start to expalin the spot you're in.

New Yorker if you believe that Mr. Brookman excludes the law of gravity from the laws of physics, kindly provide some evidence that he did so. He publicly and emphatically endorsed the laws of physics, and none of you clowns can find a single independent engineer who is willing to endorse the NIST report.